So a few months after NBC decided to pull its lineup of shows from I-Tunes so that they could infuse their programs with anti-piracy software and jack up the prices decided to reverse the decision and give up at least two of their shows for free download online, via their website.
In my mind this is one of the best decisions any media organization has made to cope with piracy. This ranks way way above a lot of record companies offering .99 cent music downloads on iTunes. Of course, you can't give NBC too much kudos given that they were originally offering pretty much their whole lineup for free, then pulled it, then (allegedly in response to fan protest), made this final decision. I'm hoping to see other shows creep onto their website for free viewing in the future.
Is this a great idea or what? By offering the free views on their own website, NBC essentially creates an interruption-free advertising environment that is good for consumer and advertiser alike. The advertisers probably enjoy a cheaper alternative to buying a television commercial spot, and the consumer gets to watch the video for free, just like on TV, but with the added bonus of zero commercial interruption. NBC itself really gets a lot out of this bargain too- since the free show will no doubt drive up traffic to their site, they can gradually charge more and more of a premium for web advertising (fyi - ad costs are generally dictated by 'circulation' - magazine subscribers, channel viewers, 'clicks', etc.).
The only problem I see with this new solution is that, if the trend continues, and other stations and media enterprises catch on, it will lend itself to a more and more 'radio' society. By this I mean, consumer choice will go down and down, as the free or low-cost (ie, iTunes 99 cent downloads) content will be chosen by the mega-corporations as opposed to consumers. We are already seeing this with the iTunes set- If you were to purchase an entire album on iTunes at the download price, the cost of the whole album would be about the same as just buying it off the store shelf. So, to save cash people download the songs they like. Except, if you didn't buy the album, the only songs you've heard (and by extension, like) are the ones on the radio or MTV. In this end this would lead to a great restriction to not only consumer freedom, but I think also to artist freedom. So, we'll have to wait and see who catches on and whether or not the system is abused. But I digress...
Free, in my opinion, is much better than 'cheap', and I for one will always believe in free media. Many of you will gripe and say 'but, but... the artists have to get paid!!'. Of course they'll get paid, even if media is free. Advertising content has always been the main drive for revenue in many media forms - radio, TV, newspapers, magazines. Why not for all forms of media? Why, for no apparent reason, do we have to pay money for games, movies, and music???
Think of it this way: Any time you go to a movie in the theater (or even buy a movie on DVD), you have to sit through 15-20 minutes of previews, don't you? What if they replaced the previews with advertisements? You're still sitting there in the theater for the same amount of time, except poof!, you're suddenly watching the movie for free! You might complain that watching commercials is probably more boring than watching previews, and to that I say you're probably right. So just charge other movie studios a premium to attach their trailers to your movie! Once again, free media for the public, revenue for the artist.
Likewise, many music artists themselves have often campaigned for revenue based entirely on tour tickets, periphernalia, shirts and the like, instead of charging money to download the music. This makes perfect sense! Hell, you could rent out the walls of the auditorium for advertisements - this is a perfect advertising environment - a captive audience who are gauranteed to see your ads! So, artists are getting revenue, the venue gets ticket profits, and the label takes home the ad costs. And best of all, the consumer benefits most (like it should be) with free music downloads.
Sadly, games are the most difficult to infuse with ad revenue. Partially because we as gamers would feel ripped off if we came across in-game advertising that drew us out of the game world we wanted to be emersed in. Shame on EA games for doing this already, only they're still charging us the same exact price for the games!!! So what can be done in the game industry to lower the cost (and, ideally, make the product free) to the consumer, while still gaining revenue? Well, I have a number of theories on this one: A) offer all PC games as free downloads and use the same NBC tactic of using the free game to generate an obscene amount of clicks, with which you can demand higher advertising prices, B) pre-load console games with 10, 15, 20 advertisements, one of which will run (unskippable) every 5th or so time the game is turned on, C) if the game is set in modern times, I really wouldn't see how an in-game pepsi ad would draw me out of the game world. After all, it's the same crap I see every day driving to work! In fact, in some instances (a la, GTA), in-game ads might even lend the game a more 'real-world' feeling.
Of course there will be members of the gaming community who will balk at the idea of ads in or around their game. To that I say, just make two versions: A free one for people who can stand an in-game billboard or two, and a 50$ ad-free version for all the suckers or rich kids willing to drop the green for it.
I know I'll still get flak from a bunch of people who will say 'but, artists deserve more money than that!', so let's play a little game of apples and oranges, shall we? Take your average journalist, writing some really truly meaningful stuff that has the potential to change the world. Their salary is probably anywhere between 20,000-60,000 dollars a year. Compare that to Seth McFarlane, or any television writer (Joss Whedon, for instance), who are making MILLIONS for doing the same amount of, if not less work! And apparently millions of dollars isnt even enough for them, since they felt the need to strike for a few months....sheesh. And then of course you have the guys doing some really dirty work out there: cleaning pooh, cleaning dead bodies, cleaning sewers, making civilized life possible, and they don't get paid anywhere near as much as musicians, directors, or any other hack trying to exploit us for a quick buck.
Log in to comment